Profile Information

Seems pretty expensive, you could get the same result by building it yourself, it is fairly easy and will come out A LOT cheaper.
Word of warning though, dealing with any kind of DIY head tracking will require some patience and determination on your part, many who complain about DIY head tracking performance did not take the time to really learn how to properly work with the software and as a result, they got dodgy performance.
I spent a couple of weeks doing small adjustments to the settings here and there before I finally got it just right.

What we really need is a person who is willing (and able) to do some more in-depth youtube based tutorials. The ones we have are good at learning the most basic of basics but don't really teach you how to keep going. I watched those videos over and over and still found that there was simply not enough real information to go off from.
The editor is complex but the real solution is to get some folks who are willing to teach. That will help a lot.

Look, considering the fact that there was a very real possibility that we were not going to get a mission editor AT ALL, I think it is fair to say that the one we did get is much better than having nothing at all. I am not saying this to stick up for 1C/777, I am saying this because there indeed was a time when we were not going to get a FMB and that would have meant that BoS would not have a future AT ALL.
They made sure we knew exactly what we were getting, acting surprised that it is complicated now makes zero sense.
I am glad we finally got it, I hope it's not too late but I am glad we got it.

This is a debate that has raged in the ROF forums awhile back, some of the weapon mods were not "common enough" and thus many heated internet arguments erupted.
My personal opinion is that if it was on a plane in real life, even one, it is valid. We are not playing as a certain pilot, flying a specific plane in a specific time frame and squadron, as such, we have the freedom to try out stuff that may or may not have been common as a way to fully explore the options that were potentially available to pilots and even to explore some of the not so great ideas.

I don't have the means to record gameplay footage but a simple youtube search on Cliffs of Dover videos will CLEARLY show a a constant and very, very visible flame coming out of the exhaust, they even tell you to use this flame as a means to see how good your mixture settings are.
I honestly don't see how you can play Cliffs of Dover and miss them.
As others have said, the DCS Mustang does indeed have visible flame as well, it may be a mistake that will get fixed but it has been around since the Mustang came out a long time ago.
So, I go back to my main question, are they all "arcade" because they have exhaust flames as well?

So I suppose every flight sim developer is guilty of this?
Look at DCS World's P-51D, notice the little exhaust flashes? I do but I hardly think that the DCS P-51D is designed for the War Thunder or arcade crowds.
How about IL-2 Cliffs of Dover, you see those flames? I do and that one often gets held up as some sort of perfect WWII flight sim with fans that will defend it's accuracy to the death.
So, tell me again how exhaust flashes are all part of some sort of conspiracy to make BoS appeal to the "arcade crowds".

I don't really think it is reasonable to expect them to fix FM's when they are already chest deep in other things that need to be done. They have a ton of things that need to work before release and while FM adjustments are important, they are also something that they can logically put-off for after the crunch time before release.

I don't really see the XP system as a real problem to be honest, some are going to get fixated on it because they see it as a gamey element and I suppose that is what it is but if we were to go with your idea, where a player plays a pilot that gains esteem, well, it is the same thing, you are still gaining XP, only it is not called XP, it is called esteem or leadership points or whatever other arbitrary name you want to use.
The XP system makes sense, since we are not playing as one specific pilot in one specific squadron, there is really no need to dress up the XP concept with a different name.
The unlock system is something that we are just going to have to deal with, 1C/777 want to try to get this sim into a larger market and as such, unlock systems might help encourage players to keep playing, it might not please hard-core, old-school flight simmers but it is such a minor thing in reality that I don't see the point in getting fussed over it. If anything, it actually encourages people to play the campaign a bit.
The developers have been pretty clear that this is what we are getting for a while now, I don't know why anyone would be surprised, if you read the dev blogs and the posts the dev's make, this is all pretty much what they promised and considering the amount of time they have had for development, I think the campaign concept is pretty good.

Just because you think that what I say is "getting old" does not make it less true.
Also, please keep in mind that when I brought up comparisons to other sims, it was not on the subject of sounds but the damage model issues that you brought up.
The point of my post was not to say that BoS must be correct but that it is important to acknowledge that one's perception of how things "should be" is usually based on other sims that may or may not have gotten things right themselves. This is why I make it a point to not use other sims as examples of how things should be done but instead I try to find actual sources from books and pilot interviews to back up my claims.
To be very blunt, the moment someone says "this is wrong in "X" sim because it is not that way in "Y" sim", well, I tend to not really take it as seriously as I would if someone says "feature "X" is not right because this book/interview/technical documentation/actual footage of aircraft says so".

I am going to hold out any opinions on the frequency of burning aircraft until I have some hard data to back my opinions up, I can't really trust my limited knowledge or my experience from other WWII sims to give me a accurate opinion to go on.
That said, I tend to lean on the side of the BoS dev's in terms of weapon damage modeling, other WWII sims seemed extremely conservative when it came to the overall destructive potential of aircraft mounted guns.
Adding on to that, I have read a great deal of quotes from WWII pilots talking about very decisive effects from just a quick burst or two, I tend to believe them since they were indeed their and experienced it first hand as opposed to experiencing it in their favorite flight sim from the past.

Yeah, I gotta disagree as well, I mean, the sounds for the engines are all really good on my end, very robust and powerful sounding.
As far as some of the other complaints, I think that it is important to ask if you are basing your opinion of BoS on your experience with another sim or with that actual facts about the aircraft, this is a common issue where players from other sims come to BoS, find that things are not exactly as they are their favorite other sim and think that it must mean that those elements are clearly wrong.
I am not trying to tell you that you are wrong to have those opinions, I only ask that you take a minute to really think about where those opinions are rooted and if they are rooted in another sim, how can you really be sure they got it correct?

This is probably something that we have been spoiled with ijn other WWII combat sims in the past, I always felt that other sims did not really do weapon damage very well at all but I can understand how someone who might have a lot of time in another WWII sim might find the adjustment to more powerful weapons a bit difficult.
Aircraft store fuel in the wings, when you shot them enough, they leak, the 109 even puts it's radiator in the wings, that also produces smoke when shot, either way, the wings are a HUGE target and are going to get hit and product vapor/smoke.

This is actually a really important thing to consider, most of us on this forum have already purchased the early access before it hit steam and thus cannot submit our reviews via steam's review system.
Perhaps it would be worth giving us steam keys (if at all possible) simply because we can give a far more accurate and fair view early on via steam reviews.